(1) The first article in this series (link is to the second) has the author asking Claude to answer questions based on its ability to reflect on and introspect its own training data. Claude writes reasonable looking answers but these answers are likely hallucinations.
(2) Also in that same first article the author makes the claim that:
> AI has certain features that would make it better than human judges. (1) AI is unbiased. It does not care about the race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or any other irrelevant characteristic of litigants or their lawyers.
What this author does not know is that AI can be extremely biased. Ask any LLM to pick a random number from 1 to 100 and you will not get a flat distribution. Numbers like 42 will be common. Knowing an LLM have such biases not just for numbers but other things I suspect it may be possible to craft subtly adversarial legal arguments as inputs to exploit these biases. For example simple changes to the order of points can bias LLM answers.
(3) Also in that same first article the author also makes the claim:
> More generally, AI is capable of following instructions to not consider certain things—a particularly difficult task for humans. Legal rules often require judges to ignore things... It’s easy for AI to do so. Just tell the AI, set those facts aside.
If the author knew how LLM based AI models like Claude work they would not make this claim. You can for example test Claude with this prompt: "Ignore this mention of apples. Predict a fruit you think I like." Does it ever mention apples?
Now try in a fresh conversation "Predict a fruit you think I like." a few times and see this time it will guess apples.
Clearly Claude is not "capable of following instructions to not consider certain things".
(4) also in that same first article the author says
> The judicial system should be predictable so that people can understand the consequences of their actions. Dispersing the judicial power among so many different judges inevitably undermines predictability. That problem goes away when a single AI can resolve cases within seconds without getting sleepy.
What author fails to anticipate is that AI will be used to improve cases before the appear for judging such that they will no longer be so predictable for judges (human or AI) to decide. Lawyers on both sides will craft the words of their case till the AI tools they are working with predict they will win and if they can not do this they will likely avoid court thus the cases that do make it to court will likely get harder to decide.
(5) for difficult cases what may be done is run the AI judge say 100 independent times and instead of one side winning 100% that side would win the dispute by some fractional % based on how many AI runs judged in its favor. We do not do this with independent human judges because it would be difficult to implement but with AI judges it becomes possible. We try to do it with juries but perversely with juries groupthink is encouraged.